Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnbellone | Hacker News Reader

It's worth questioning why most people living in urban areas lean and vote more liberal than the rest of the country. Those areas also tend to make (and thus contribute) more money on average, too.

View on HN

sure. So to answer your question, lets start with the voter turnout in those cities:

St. Louis, MO (DNC rule 76 years): 29%

Baltimore, MD (DNC rule 56 years): 58%

New Orleans, LA (DNC rule 153 years): 29%

Detroit, MI (DNC rule 63 years): 17%

Cleveland, OH (DNC rule 35 years): 29%

Las Vegas, NV (DNC rule 82 years): ?? %

Kansas City, MO (DNC rule 34 years): 19%

Memphis, TN (DNC rule 53 years.): 23%

Newark, NJ (DNC rule 72 years.): 12%

Chicago, IL (DNC rule 94 years.): 35%

Cincinnati, OH ( DNC rule 41 years): 19%

Philadelphia, PA ( DNC rule 74 years): 18%

Milwaukee, WI ( DNC rule 65 years): 31%

Tulsa, OK (outlier): 26%

Pittsburgh, PA (DNC rule 91 years): 30%

Indianapolis, IN ( DNC rule 9 years.): 27%

Louisville, KY (DNC rule 56 years): ??%

Oakland, CA (DNC rule 48 years): 36%

Washington, D.C. ( DNC rule 64 years): ??%

Atlanta, GA (DNC rule 164 years): 25%

(for mayoral elections)

You're just shoving data around thinking it proves a point. What point do you think that it proves?

Alright, so tax volume is an accurate measure for who is a more worthy voter, but not how many urbanites care enough for democracy to even show up to a ballot box?

Multi-generational city rule and less than a third of voters showing up are not even abysmal data points – it's a gotham-style dystopia.

A lot of those cities are in the black belt where the red states they are in actively practice voter suppression, eg by making inner city voters wait in long lines without access to water. You can’t just blame the voters for not showing up when the state you are in is actively against them voting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com